Supreme Court urged to support gay marriage limits

There are 287 comments on the
WTAX-AM Springfield
story from Jan 22, 2013, titled Supreme Court urged to support gay marriage limits.
In it, WTAX-AM Springfield reports that:

The Supreme Court was urged on Tuesday to uphold the constitutionality of two laws that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as it prepares to hear arguments in the historic same-sex marriage cases two months from now.

The federal DOMA statute is CLEARLY unconstitutional because it violates the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Now if a state wishes to NOT legalize same-sex marriages within it's borders, they should have that right. But in recognizing a state's right to legislate it's own marriage laws, ALL states MUST legally recognize ALL the marriages of ALL other states, and other jurisdictions in the U.S., INCLUDING same-sex marriages performed in the states and other jurisdictions that permit them, AS PER the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

If you are going to make an exception for same-sex marriage, then what is to stop a state, or the federal government from not legally recognizing the marriage sof first cousins ? Or 13 year olds ? Legal chaos will result if ALL marriages are NOT legally recognized by the federal government, and the states, and other jurisdictions in the U.S.

The federal DOMA statute is CLEARLY unconstitutional because it violates the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution.Now if a state wishes to NOT legalize same-sex marriages within it's borders, they should have that right. But in recognizing a state's right to legislate it's own marriage laws, ALL states MUST legally recognize ALL the marriages of ALL other states, and other jurisdictions in the U.S., INCLUDING same-sex marriages performed in the states and other jurisdictions that permit them, AS PER the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution.If you are going to make an exception for same-sex marriage, then what is to stop a state, or the federal government from not legally recognizing the marriage sof first cousins ? Or 13 year olds ? Legal chaos will result if ALL marriages are NOT legally recognized by the federal government, and the states, and other jurisdictions in the U.S.

I agree that a State has a right to define marriage as it sees fit......however, if the State has already granted the right for Same-Sex Couples to marry.......they then can not eliminate that right just because......that would be a clear violation of Due Process.

I am unable to read this article at this time, but just seeing the headline physically made my stomach curdle.(Based on the "related topix" list, I'm guessing it's about a presentation from BLAG on DOMA and Prop8.)

Why would my stomach curdle? Because here is this group of people, apparently important people, who don't seem to have any problem with supporting two laws that actually have a direct and discriminatory impact on me. The message of these "important" people is very clear: I am not as good as they are and therefore do not deserve to be treated the same under the law.

This is wrong on so many levels, starting with the faulty religious beliefs on which it is based. Those stone age beliefs are being used to support laws in this country, in clear violation of the very bedrock principles upon which this country was founded. I am sick and tired of being the whipping boy of any two-bit politician or preacher who gets paid to demonize me. May future history look upon you with all the derision that you so immensely deserve.

I can't agree with the "state's rights" position, not on this issue. Not if we're going to call this a fight for true civil rights. Can the states individually recognize slavery, or limit voting to only men? Aren't the states expected to recognize and honor the legal contracts of other states? We don't allow the states to treat interracial marriage this way. I'm not interested in traveling cross-country with an on-again-off-again marriage, through a patchwork of "friendly" and "enemy" territories.

<quoted text>I agree that a State has a right to define marriage as it sees fit......however, if the State has already granted the right for Same-Sex Couples to marry.......they then can not eliminate that right just because......that would be a clear violation of Due Process.

The link isn't working.I can't agree with the "state's rights" position, not on this issue. Not if we're going to call this a fight for true civil rights. Can the states individually recognize slavery, or limit voting to only men? Aren't the states expected to recognize and honor the legal contracts of other states? We don't allow the states to treat interracial marriage this way. I'm not interested in traveling cross-country with an on-again-off-again marriage, through a patchwork of "friendly" and "enemy" territories.

The state's rights issue doesn't include violating the Federal constitution. That's what people always seem to forget.

But, interestingly enough, new unjust and unconstitutional laws get voted in ever days! Using your examples, if a state decided to vote slavery back in and start buying and selling people at public auction, or they voted to take right to vote away from women, or if their legislature voted that all people with red hair have to pay double taxes, THEY CAN!! There's absolutely nothing but the judicial branch of government to stop them. And, at the state level, those laws, until they are struck down by the courts, could actually be enforced!

Of course, if such bizarre things DID ever get voted in (think the South), some court would undoubtedly issue an emergency injunction against them because they're so obviously unconstitutional.

But that's where our issues become so laborious. While it's plainly and blatantly obvious to US that we're being denied our constitutional rights, it's not so obvious to a lot of the idiots that we have to share the country with. Their ignorance and selfish disregard for others allows them to justify to themselves that we're NOT being denied anything. If we would just live our lives like they want us to, for sure we'd be happy right? Therefore, it's our own fault that we're unhappy, so we don't need those civil rights after all.

<quoted text>It is ludicrous to try to call the hate based movement to disenfranchise voters on marriage a civil rights movement. It is quite the opposite! You are a racist to claim that it is somehow the same thing to be born an African American or to choose to engage in the unspeakable God-forbidden acts that alone define and identify homosexuality. Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?

It's ludicrous to deal with your false names day after day, DAVID MOORE of S. 18th Street, Pekin, Illinois.

With the oh so friendly Pres. Obama in office once again, your kind will be relegated to quaint speedbumps in history. A full 54% of adults approve of gay marriage now days. Most under 30 are about 70% supportive. Your prejudices and petty hatreds are going the way of the Edsel and Life Magazine and telegrams. Bye bye.

<quoted text>It's ludicrous to deal with your false names day after day, DAVID MOORE of S. 18th Street, Pekin, Illinois.With the oh so friendly Pres. Obama in office once again, your kind will be relegated to quaint speedbumps in history. A full 54% of adults approve of gay marriage now days. Most under 30 are about 70% supportive. Your prejudices and petty hatreds are going the way of the Edsel and Life Magazine and telegrams. Bye bye.

Fool! Most under 30's have never been married, had kids, or whatsoever any experience, yes, young people reject good solid wisdom and facts! I am orangelion!

Homosexuality is vile. Homosexuals are broken goods. I want to offend homosexuals. I hope I upsetm any homosexuals through my comments! Homosexuals hate God, and feel guilty, and want to mend themselves from guilt, because they never accept their parents never loved them, and are damaged unlovable goods. Does this offend you, homosexuals?

Whatever, grandpa. Your day will come too and your archaic ideas will go with you to your muddy grave. No one will mourn either you or your ideas.

I have read that your Queen is highly gay friendly and HRH's palace is STOCKED with gays, whom she finds amusing and fun to be around. She'll often enter a room say something like "I guess all Queens are here!"

My hubby IS English and we have been to visit the UK many times. I have NEVER seen so many bars or clubs as in London. Everyone knows and NO one cares.

You are in the minority there as your fellow haters are becoming in this country.

<quoted text>I agree that a State has a right to define marriage as it sees fit......however, if the State has already granted the right for Same-Sex Couples to marry.......they then can not eliminate that right just because......that would be a clear violation of Due Process.

Irrelevant. We're not talking about rights that are already granted being taken away by a state. AND, a state CAN take away rights that were previoulsy granted.

EXAMPLE: Are you aware that in the early history of the U.S., some jurisdictions granted women teh right to vote, and then later that right was taken away ? No court has ever ruled that a state cannot do that.

<quoted text>Irrelevant. We're not talking about rights that are already granted being taken away by a state. AND, a state CAN take away rights that were previoulsy granted.EXAMPLE: Are you aware that in the early history of the U.S., some jurisdictions granted women teh right to vote, and then later that right was taken away ? No court has ever ruled that a state cannot do that.

Libs are constitution worshippers. They worship their own idolized and ideas understanding of what state the constitution is in.

Homosexuality is vile. Homosexuals are broken goods. I want to offend homosexuals. I hope I upsetm any homosexuals through my comments! Homosexuals hate God, and feel guilty, and want to mend themselves from guilt, because they never accept their parents never loved them, and are damaged unlovable goods. Does this offend you, homosexuals?

If you are going to make an exception for same-sex marriage, then what is to stop a state, or the federal government from not legally recognizing the marriage sof first cousins ? Or 13 year olds ? Legal chaos will result if ALL marriages are NOT legally recognized by the federal government, and the states, and other jurisdictions in the U.S.

Marriage establishes legal kinship.Blood relatives are already legally kin; so marriage is redundant.Considering how fundamentalists abuse their children; marrying the kids off to responsible adults is a brilliant idea; better than adoption

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.